Don't know if it was mentioned as I can't be bothered to check the last several pages of posts but like Virginia, a once solid red state, North Carolina is going 'purple' and will be a swing state for some time due to changng demographics as well.

North Carolinians will know what I mean by 'the Triangle' an area that is bloomed in research and such and has attracted a lot of out of staters. Very educated, northern and liberal or mderate. The state will likely go to Romney but it will always be in play.

Colorado and Nevada have a large and ever increasing latino population that will continue to put those states in play.

The Republican party is losing the demographics trends in its present state. It needs moderates to win natioanal elections but the religious right and the tea partiers won't allow that. There will be a civil war within the party over this.

Romney was a moderate but he had to kiss up to right wing crazy people to get the nomination.

You are quite right that it is a problem, a major problem, that lobbyists from the industries manipulate the regulations that affect those industries. You see the solution as weakening the victim; I see the solution as strengthening the victim so as to combat the predatory corporations.

The government is the hired muscle here, not the victim. Taxes, bailouts, moral hazard and forgiveness of crimes are all done by the government to help corporations and hurt the People.

Fraud should be legally punished and hasn't. Poor decisions due to greed (by both bankers and consumers lusting after no down payment loans) should not be rectified by sinking our children further into debt.

The fact is, a multi-billion dollar corporation is going to be much more vigilant and aggressive about getting favorable "regulation" passed than the despondent American public will be about having fair and real regulations passed. The more "regulations" that are passed, the more opportunities there are for said corporations to control the system.

You are quite right that it is a problem, a major problem, that lobbyists from the industries manipulate the regulations that affect those industries. You see the solution as weakening the victim; I see the solution as strengthening the victim so as to combat the predatory corporations.

The government is the hired muscle here, not the victim. Taxes, bailouts, moral hazard and forgiveness of crimes are all done by the government to help corporations and hurt the People.

Exactly. Government is force (to quote Jefferson) and in our own time has degraded into being nothing more than hired thugs. The most ridiculous thing is how cheap it is for Wall Street to buy off these scumbag politicians. The major banks spend mere millions to put Obama (the teleprompter-in-chief) into power. Compare that with the $13+ trillion he has doled out to them (with much more to follow, as the raping continues in the next 4 years). The return on investment is staggering. Obama and co. aren't even expensive thugs for hire, they're cheap. For the establishment Obama is the equivalent of a $2 crack wh0re they can pay off to have their way the American people.

And as for the American people themselves, at least half of them are positively loving it. It'd be like if you tried to rape somebody, only to find out they actually wanted it, and the more you try to degrade and humiliate them the more they beg you to continue. This is how sick America has become. The Obama supporters dancing in the streets just plain love the raping they've been getting. They love not being to get a job or having any opportunities going forward, and they love they get to have food stamps instead. They think it's trendy and wonderful.

Economist Paul Krugman described moral hazard as "any situation in which one person makes the decision about how much risk to take, while someone else bears the cost if things go badly."[3] Financial bailouts of lending institutions by governments, central banks or other institutions can encourage risky lending in the future if those that take the risks come to believe that they will not have to carry the full burden of potential losses. Lending institutions need to take risks by making loans, and usually the most risky loans have the potential for making the highest return.[4] So-called "too big to fail" lending institutions can make risky loans that will pay handsomely if the investment turns out well but be bailed out by the taxpayer if the investment turns out badly.

You're smart enough to know this Ya-ta, which makes me believe you aren't actually interested in replying to my post.